Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PPC Ltd.


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The sources provided during the discussion have not been countered. Vanamonde (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

PPC Ltd.

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of any notability. Recently added sources by COI editor are both own web-sites. Searches reveal very little better. Previous PROD removed by COI editor. This appears to be a large company but with a very low profile. Currently fails to meet WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk 10:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

DO NOT DELETE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PPCZA (talk • contribs) 10:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep The company is large and easily notable, as a simple search for sources indicates (for example, and ). The article in its current state is poor, and includes copyright violations, but these need to be fixed, rather than the whole article being deleted. Greenman (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's a big old company based in South Africa. I'd love to see this pass muster for a Wikipedia article, but it doesn't now.  Why not?  Is it just a big old company that nobody has every written anything on?  I guess then it is not notable.  Is there something you just haven't noticed or are leaving out?  Well get off your duff and find it! or just put it in. It is difficult for folks outside of Africa to find out what's the problem, but there does seem to be a problem.  Temporary delete until it is fixed.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 19:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * How do you get to 'nobody has ever written anything on' from the sources I've listed? With literally the first search I made, I found sources from one of South Africa's largest media websites, one of South Africa's most notable financial websites, and Bloomberg. If by 'nobody has ever written anything on' you're referring to Wikipedia, that's not grounds for deletion, that's grounds for, as you say, getting off your duff and fixing it :) As WP:ATD states, 'If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page'. Greenman (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, my question should have been "Is it just a big old company that nobody has ever written anything in depth on?." I see from the list on the article page:
 * a directory listing from Bloomberg
 * a fairly routine coverage of a bond ratings change (this happens all the time). There is some analysis on why the bond rating was changed, but I don't know whether the source is reliable, and the analysis has not been included in the Wikipedia article (yet?).
 * An announcement of a failed merger(?) - forgive me for not being sure what it is but the terminology is quite different than I would use - so it is just difficult for me to know what they are really saying. Again, I don't know anything about the reliability of the source.
 * The company's annual report - it's good that this is available to the reader, but it doesn't look like the material is being included in the Wikiarticle and of course it is not an indepenent source.
 * So if you are just going to leave it in its current state, or to rely on my efforts to improve this, I'd still have to say delete. I do hope somebody will improve this, but it won't be me. Sorry. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 00:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not how Wikipedia's deletion policy works. You cannot ask someone to improve the article for you (or be expected to improve it yourself), or else it will be deleted. Deletion is based on the topic's notability, based on reliable sources. Many articles start as stubs and get improved over time. Please read the links above. The comments about not knowing whether the sources are reliable is a bit like someone going unfamiliar with US business going "Wall Street Journal, hmm, don't know if that's a reliable source" and then suggesting the topic be deleted, so can only suggest familiarising yourself a bit more with the area. Greenman (talk) 12:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * How do you reach this conclusion? Did you perform a search? I've just performed another search, and it took me seconds to find sources from Daily News, Forbes, IOL, Fin24, eNCA, Business Day, Moneyweb, Biz Community, Citizen... Greenman (talk) 12:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. directory entry, based on PR and directory material .there is no sustantial coverage. The sources give seem to be either brief notices or listings.  DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you actually search? Looking for news articles, I find them discussed as part of a cement cartel in Business Live, as part of the countrywide cement shortage in Zimbabwe Daily News. Those are from today only :) How are these PR and directory listings? Greenman (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment can you post links to three or four references you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability here please? Take a look at WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND beforehand so that you're familiar with two parts of NCORP that typically disqualify references from being used for the purposes of establishing notability.  HighKing++ 19:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The book's index notes on page 334 which pages PPC has been mentioned on or discussed: "PPC, 129, 133–6, 140–1" The book notes on page 134: "PPC and its future in Africa PPC was, for a long time, the largest home-grown cement producer on the continent. It is also the oldest cement company in Africa, started in 1892, and has been listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange since 1910. Described as a large-scale domestic player in the South African cement industry, PPC accounts for around 43 per cent of South Africa’s market share, traditionally focused on manufacturing and supply to the South African market with a moderate amount of exports to surrounding countries. It is also the only cement producer with a complete national footprint of integrated plants.19 The high demand for cement in South Africa has always encouraged PPC to concentrate its efforts on the local market, with little interest beyond the borders where low levels of efficiency and high costs were not necessarily met with market demand. This was especially the case between 2004 and 2010 when large-scale infrastructure projects were being rolled out in South Africa along with a spike in construction around the FIFA World Cup Football Finals. This was a period of substantial growth in nearby African markets, when most observers would have expected PPC to expand outward. However, capacity constraints due to the company structure as a subsidiary of Barlow kept the company at home, apart from moderate exports to neighbouring countries, a few exploration projects in the Southern Africa region and one or two investments in neighbouring Zimbabwe and Botswana. PPC acquired Portland Holdings Limited in Zimbabwe in 2001 and PPC-Botswana, originally CEMPACK, was a partnership PPC entered into with the Botswana government in 1994. In 2007, with the unbundling of PPC from Barlow, PPC were able to launch their Africa-wide strategy with the help of a large capex injection into the share market from Barlow’s 70 per cent holding over the company. PPC also focused its offering on becoming more vertically integrated in their customer’s business model, adding value through efficient capacity and strong customer relations. This, inadvertently, started drawing them further into new African markets, as local demand for cement commodities began to taper off. With an eye on expanding into the rest of Africa, PPC adopted the strategy of growing beyond the South African market but as head of PPC for Africa Pepe Meijer described, ‘Keeping the home fires burning’." There is further discussion about the company on pages 135 and 136.  The book notes: "Pretoria Portland Cement Company Ltd. (PPC) Ind. — Building & Construction. ... Nature of Business: Pretoria Portland Cement Company Limited is a South African company and the group supplies the major portion of the country's cement and lime needs. The company has investments in the ready mixed concrete industry and in other companies connected with the supply of cementitious products. Group companies manufacture and distribute cement, lime and limestone products, paper sacks and other containers. History: Founded in 1892 De Eerste Cement Fabrieken Beperkt, today known as Pretoria Portland Cement Company Limited, is the oldest and largest cement manufacturer in South Africa. It supplies about 46 per cent of the country's cement needs and 65 per cent of the lime consumed in this country. De Eerste Cement Fabrieken, called Hercules by its first manager in symbolic acknowledgement of the strength it would eventually lend the country it served, was officially opened by Paul Kruger, President of the Transvaal Republic. Sited several kilometres north of Pretoria, the factory was established to provide locally produced cement for the building and infrastructural development following the discovery of gold on the Witwatersrand. It was in 1907 that the lime division was founded to meet the demands of the goldmines which, at that stage, were importing most of the lime required for the newly introduced gold cyanidation process."  According to https://www.pressreader.com/south-africa/the-citizen-kzn/20180704/281917363828249, this article also was published in the 4 July 2018 edition of The Citizen. The article notes: "Two years later and a more than 50% drop in PPC’s share price, a different company has emerged, even prompting S&P to upgrade its credit rating. On Friday, S&P raised PPC’s long-term corporate credit rating to zaA- and short-term to zaA-2 (both investment grade). In a note, S&P said the improved rating reflects PPC’s “broadly stable” underlying credit metrics, earnings and adequate liquidity. The upgrade in PPC’s credit rating is largely due to its significant progress in strengthening the balance sheet by restructuring South African debt, reducing interest rate costs and with the performance of its rest of Africa operations. PPC successfully raised R4 billion in 2016 via a rights offer, reducing group debt from R9.1 billion in the year to March 2016 to R4.7 billion in the year to March 2018. PPC also managed to negotiate a two-year moratorium for DRC project funding of R2.1 billion (representing more than 35% of its total debt) with interest payments also extended by two years. “In our opinion, its improved capital structure and liquidity profile will help mitigate the adverse effects of cyclicality in the building materials industry, especially given the relatively depressed operating environment in SA,” S&P said." The article also quotes from Meyrick Barker, an investment analyst at Kagiso Asset Management, and Mish-al Emeran, an analyst at Electus Fund Managers.  According to https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-405764877.html, this article also was published in the 18 March 2015 edition of The Star. The article notes: "CEMENT maker PPC is under new leadership, in talks about a possible merger and facing tougher competition at home and on the continent. That’s made it the country’s worst performing stock this year. The shares are down 37 percent so far this year, closing at R17.44 on the JSE yesterday, and trading almost 47 percent lower than when former chief executive Ketso Gordhan’s resignation was announced on September 22. ... “It’s reasonable to say that there was a lot of uncertainty,” Roy Mutooni, an analyst at Renaissance Capital, who has a buy recommendation on the stock, said. “Why would you want to come in now? Nothing really has been resolved.”" The article also quotes from Victor Seanie, an investment analyst at Kagiso Asset Management.</li> <li> The article notes: "SA’s biggest cement maker, PPC, is an unlikely candidate for a takeover battle. ... 'PPC has a good portfolio of assets,' UBS analyst Kwame Antwi said. 'Cement consumption on the continent is lower than most parts of the world, and Africa is also likely to experience some of the most rapid urbanisation rates.' ...  'The share price got too cheap and was trading significantly below replacement value of the underlying assets,' UBS’s Kwame said. 'Such a scenario will always attract the attention of bargain hunters.'" The article also quotes from Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Sonia Baldeira.</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow PPC to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 06:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * The article was created by on 28 October 2018. The article's first version is neutrally written and can be reverted to if the current version is found to be too promotional. Cunard (talk) 06:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep There is coverage by analysts that meets the criteria for establishing notability as provided by Cunard above. Topic meets GNG and NCORP. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 10:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep those sources given by Cunard above are good; I'd have to be pretty convinced to !vote delete on a company so large - sources on companies, especially ones this old, are often in books than news (and since this company is based in south africa, many sources may not even be in english or even indexed by google books); and indeed there is good coverage to be found. Also I nearly did a double-take when I saw HighKing !voting keep on a company :D Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment responding to the request above for more links. Here are 3 mentions of them in the last week:
 * https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/national/2018-09-03-mckinsey-accused-of-complicity-in-cement-industry-cartel/ - cement cartel accusations
 * https://www.businesslive.co.za/fm/money-and-investing/backstory/2018-08-30-backstory-ppcs-tryphosa-ramano/ - interview with the CFO
 * http://www.sharenet.co.za/news/White_SAfrican_workers_protest_against_Sasols_black_share_scheme/3cf8f0bf0e278e1d5b589e2901c46ef5 - union challenging their BEE scheme Greenman (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as clearly has independent significant coverage as shown by at least three editors, passes WP:CORPDEPTH, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.